1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO

R.P.F.C. No.98 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1.

CHINTANA

S/O PRAKASH TAGADINAMANI

AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS

2.

SMT. YASHODA R.,

W/O PRAKASH TAGADINAMANI

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/O RAMAPPA R

AVVA NILAYA

BEHIND GANAPATHI TEMPLE

HARIHARA 3 577 601.

PETITIONER NO.1 BEING MINOR

REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND

NATURAL MOTHER PETITIONER NO.2.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. S.B. HALLI, ADVOCATE

APPEARED THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING)

AND:

SRI. PRAKASH

TAGADINAMANI

S/O FAKKIRAPPA

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

2

R/O BGVS PU. COLLEGE

JOIDA, NORTH CANARA DISTRICT

UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT 3 581186.

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. G.S.BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)

APPEARED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT

ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:09.03.2017 PASSED IN

CRL.MISC.NO.243/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, C/C JUDGE, FAMILY

COURT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED

UNDER SEC. 125 OF CR.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.

THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This matters is listed for Admission. With the consent

of learned counsel for both the parties matter is taken up

for final disposal.

2.

The revision petitioners have preferred this

petition under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act, seeking

for enhancement of monthly maintenance granted to them

on 9^th March 2017 in C.Misc.No.243/2015 by the Judge,

3

Family Court, Davanagere, payable by one Sri Prakash

Tagadinamani/respondent. The operative portion is as

under :

< The petition filed by the petitioners under

Sec.125 of Cr.P.C., is Partly allowed with cost.

The respondent is directed to pay Rs.2,500/-

per month to the petitioner No.1 towards his

maintenance from the date of order till he attains

the age of majority. The respondent is further

directed to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to the

petitioner No.2 towards her maintenance from the

date of order.

3.

The substance of the case as extracted from the

order passed dated:09.03.2017 by the family Court is as

under:

<The petitioners contended that the marriage

of the petitioner No.2 has been solemnized with

respondent on 08.09.2003 at Bhagini Kalyna

Mantapa, Dharawad as per the customs prevailed

in their community. OUt of the wedlock, petitioner

No.1 is born to them. At the time of marriage, the

parents

of

the

petitioner

No.2

have

paid

4

Rs.4,00,000/-, five tholas of gold, one bike and

house hold utensils to the respondent in the from

of dowry. After the marriage, she has led happy

married life for a period of six moths. Thereafter,

the respondent without any reasons has started to

give torture to the petitioner No.2 and he has

demanded additional dowry and subjected her with

cruelty. The respondent is working as a lecturer in

B.G.V.S. P.u college, Joida. The respondent was

used to go out of the house for 2-3 days

continuously and whenever the petitioner No.2 has

tried to contact him over the phone he was not

receiving the phone and after returning to the

house, when the petitioner No.2 has enquired to

him, he was not giving any proper reply. The

respondent was not providing grocery items to the

petitioner No.2 and he was also not paying the

school fees of the petitioner No.1. The petitioner

No.2 is a Diploma holder. So, she tolerated the

harassment given by the respondent with a hope

that he may change his attitude in future. But, in

spite of it, he has not changed his attitude. The

elders have advised several times, but in spite of

it, he has not heeded to the request of the elders

and continued to give torture to her. In the night

he used to on the cylinder with an intention that

5

the petitioner No.2 will burn in the fire incident an